'The internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet.'

Correct. Oh wait, didn't Al Gore invent the Internet on his own? IIRC, DARPA invented the Internet, but it was businesses (not the government) that made it take off.

If not for business usage, the Internet would still be in test mode.

'Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'

True, but that someone includes all the business owners who pay taxes, plus the trucking companies who pay taxes and usage fees.

And the reason the government helped build the Interstates was so that they could move troops and tanks quickly.

It is truly amazing how incompetent Obama is regarding business and the economy.

I would like to if I may point out a slight flaw in your argument. In your erroneous derision of Al Gore for claiming he invented the internet (which he didn't claim) you said (correctly) DARPA invented the internet but it was business that made it take off. Yet a few sentences later you stated (correctly) the government built the interstate highway system so tanks and troops could move quickly in the event of mass mobilization (also true). The problem I see is that DARPA is a government agency and they invented the internet so government agencies could quickly share vital information. Kind of a cyber version of the interstate highway system if you will. I believe both the internet and the interstate highway system were both created by the government for its own needs and the country and the world soon found other, profitable uses for these marvels. I fail to see why that is so terrible. Probably someone would have invented the internet sooner or later but it is unlikely that any one private firm would have the capital to build the interstate highway system on its own and if they did the entire system would be tolled not only parts of it. As far as paying for any infrastructure which benefits many (such as roads and bridges) and is payed for with tax dollars, I believe that is called a society where the idea is everybody pays something toward our mutual benefit, especially huge, capital intensive, nationwide projects. Of the 42, 000 miles of the interstate highway system only 2,900 miles are toll roads. For rest of the system, 70 % of the cost is paid from fuel taxes which are the same for any type of fuel. I would say given the disparity in weight (and damage to the road), the trucking companies are getting a far better bang for their fuel tax bucks than car drivers are.

Perhaps Obama could have phrased his argument more tactfully and delicately but I think the underlying premise is valid. I think what Obama was trying to say is that sometimes it is essential for progress for the government to initially fund projects that can be improved by private industry and utilized by everyone. Especially in cases where there is little profit incentive for private industry to do so, such as the early postal service and rural electrification.

It took more than a few entrepreneurs to build a country such as the US, everybody helped.

chemvictim

About Obama and businesses - he said some stupid things, no doubt. That's typical. But this one is true, I think.

'There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me - because they want to give something back,' he said. 'They know they didn't - look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own.

'You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.
'There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.'

Yeah, we all like to think we're smarter and more hard-working, and better in every possible way than the next guy, but it is true that you don't succeed in a vacuum. I can understand why business owners would not want more regulation (hell, who does?), but I'm not sure how they legitimately complain about Obama's tax policies. The top marginal rate is lower than it has been in many years, lower even than it was during most of Reagan's years. I know you guys hate Obama a LOT, but is the tax burden under Obama really so much more than it has been in the past?

MarkDaSpark

chemvictim wrote:About Obama and businesses - he said some stupid things, no doubt. That's typical. But this one is true, I think.

'There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me - because they want to give something back,' he said. 'They know they didn't - look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own.

'You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.
'There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.'

Yeah, we all like to think we're smarter and more hard-working, and better in every possible way than the next guy, but it is true that you don't succeed in a vacuum. I can understand why business owners would not want more regulation (hell, who does?), but I'm not sure how they legitimately complain about Obama's tax policies. The top marginal rate is lower than it has been in many years, lower even than it was during most of Reagan's years. I know you guys hate Obama a LOT, but is the tax burden under Obama really so much more than it has been in the past?

It's not the tax burden per se (which Obama wants to raise even more), but the regulations and the uneven enforcement. Plus the he's pushing for more government jobs (which really doesn't help the economy) instead of helping business.

Small Business has been (and probably always) one of the driving forces behind the US economy. Over half of the nation's private workforce are in jobs provided by small businesses.

And according to the SBA (a gov't entity), small businesses create more than 50 percent of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). As well as creating around 75 percent of the net new jobs in our economy.

So yes, while we don't operate in a vacuum, if it wasn't for entrepreneurs being the driving force, no one would succeed.

Oh, and Obama isn't responsible for the lower tax rates. He wants to raise them again, remember?

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

merbill

rpm wrote:1. Yes, the "internet" was originally known as the "DARPA net" and it was turned on in October 1969. I know because I was there, in the computer center at UC Santa Barbara when it was first turned on. A computer science major friend was a sysop and happened to see me walking from the history department to the library past the computer center, came out and grabbed me excitedly, explaining that they were about to turn on this new "network" among UCLA, Stanford, USCB and UUtah. There was a little celebration. I seem to recall it crashed after an hour or two. But it was way cool to be able to say I was there at the birth of the internet. Even before Al Gore....

chemvictim

MarkDaSpark wrote:It's not the tax burden per se (which Obama wants to raise even more), but the regulations and the uneven enforcement. Plus the he's pushing for more government jobs (which really doesn't help the economy) instead of helping business.

Small Business has been (and probably always) one of the driving forces behind the US economy. Over half of the nation's private workforce are in jobs provided by small businesses.

And according to the SBA (a gov't entity), small businesses create more than 50 percent of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). As well as creating around 75 percent of the net new jobs in our economy.

So yes, while we don't operate in a vacuum, if it wasn't for entrepreneurs being the driving force, no one would succeed.

Oh, and Obama isn't responsible for the lower tax rates. He wants to raise them again, remember?

Agreed. George W. Bush is responsible for the lower tax rates, correct? And yet when those were put into place it was as a temporary measure. Did anyone really think the tax cuts would become permanent?

According to this chart , it's the people in the middle who are getting shafted these days. Obama or Romney, take your pick, neither will do a thing to change that. In fact, it appears that either or both of them would do what they can to get rid of us, just create a big ol' smoking crater where the middle class used to be. They're just coming to the same solution from different directions.

kylemittskus

Here's the thing. You can't tax us out of a recession. Period. And you sure as hell can't regulate us out of one either. Period. God, that sounds so Republican. Uhhh.... go gay marriage! Better.

But seriously, I think one of the biggest issues that we always end up pendulum-swinging back to, and that RPM harps on a lot, is not the higher tax rates for the "1%" or the destruction of the middle class by taxing (both are stupid, see first paragraph), but the fact that people don't pay taxes and then get to vote about taxes!

Keep in mind, I'm against taxes completely, but if I'm paying, then you should to. Which is why... **drumroll please** flat tax makes so much sense! Everyone pays X% on any gain. Minutiae can be figured out by people smarter than me, but if everyone paying the same % seems like the most "Democratic" solution.

Obama doesn't understand business? That's just stupid. Obama is hurting small business. Not so stupid. Romney is great for the American economy. Stupid. Romney is the only option we have which is the product of a f-ed up system that needs to be substantially taken back about thirty notches? Not so stupid.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark

chemvictim wrote:So, are you saying that it's not fair for a person to vote for potentially restrictive or harmful policies for other people, with no risk to himself or herself?

Not at all. He's trying to say that if you put your hand in my pocket to take my money, you should be putting it in your pocket and taking your money as well.

If you have no buy-in, what does it matter that someone else has to pay for it?

The reason the middle class is declining is due to all the leeches at the bottom. Why work hard to pay for others to goof off?

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus

MarkDaSpark wrote:Not at all. He's trying to say that if you put your hand in my pocket to take my money, you should be putting it in your pocket and taking your money as well.

If you have no buy-in, what does it matter that someone else has to pay for it?

The reason the middle class is declining is due to all the leeches at the bottom. Why work hard to pay for others to goof off?

This.

I don't think people should be able to vote for issues that will negatively affect others with no ramifications for themselves.

I want welfare. Welfare costs me $0, but it costs someone. To get more welfare, higher taxes need to be instituted. I am going to vote for higher taxes. All benefit to me. None to the person who is actually affected by my vote.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim

I don't think people should be able to vote for issues that will negatively affect others with no ramifications for themselves.

I want welfare. Welfare costs me $0, but it costs someone. To get more welfare, higher taxes need to be instituted. I am going to vote for higher taxes. All benefit to me. None to the person who is actually affected by my vote.

Yeah, I agree with that too. I also apply the same general principle to "social issues," although not everyone sees it that way. I still remain unconvinced that Romney will improve the financial aspect you've described, and he seems willing to take us in the wrong direction on the social issues. I can see no benefit in choosing him.

kylemittskus

chemvictim wrote:Yeah, I agree with that too. I also apply the same general principle to "social issues," although not everyone sees it that way. I still remain unconvinced that Romney will improve the financial aspect you've described, and he seems willing to take us in the wrong direction on the social issues. I can see no benefit in choosing him.

I was going to make the same comparison, but figured you'd get it anyway. Does my action affect you at all? No. Then why do you care?

And Romney, I don't like him. But Obamacare scares the S out of me. Seriously, that's my only reason why I'm voting against him. Because I can't think of anything good about Romney except he didn't create socialized healthcare.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark

chemvictim wrote:Yeah, I agree with that too. I also apply the same general principle to "social issues," although not everyone sees it that way. I still remain unconvinced that Romney will improve the financial aspect you've described, and he seems willing to take us in the wrong direction on the social issues. I can see no benefit in choosing him.

That's what is so scary ... that people don't see that there is a difference.

Obama is the Great Divider. While Romney may have his problems, we've had 4 years of being divided, and we really can't take 4 more years of it.

And right now, I can't see Obama doing anything to improve US economics. Everything right now he is saying is opposite of what needs to be done.

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

edlada

MarkDaSpark wrote:Not at all. He's trying to say that if you put your hand in my pocket to take my money, you should be putting it in your pocket and taking your money as well.

If you have no buy-in, what does it matter that someone else has to pay for it?

The reason the middle class is declining is due to all the leeches at the bottom. Why work hard to pay for others to goof off?

Do you truly believe that (bolded portion]??????????
Did you look at the tax burden chart (which only shows federal income tax) that Chem victim posted above? The one that shows that workers earning between $20,000 and $150,000 per year are basically bearing the largest share of the tax burden as a percentage of income? I don't know about you but where I come from $20,000 per year is damned close to poverty level if you have any children.

It's funny that if lower income folks point out the disparity of tax burden of lower and middle income people vs high income people, the wealthy folks are quick to shout "class warfare". (And if all taxes, payroll, state and local are included the disparity is even more in favor of the weathy) Yet a statement as ridiculous as yours is shrugged off as a sad truth of today's America. Apparently the Poli"ticks" thread has become "Fox News" newest affiliate.

bhodilee

MarkDaSpark wrote:That's what is so scary ... that people don't see that there is a difference.

Obama is the Great Divider. While Romney may have his problems, we've had 4 years of being divided, and we really can't take 4 more years of it.

And right now, I can't see Obama doing anything to improve US economics. Everything right now he is saying is opposite of what needs to be done.

Is he himself the great divider? I would say probably not. For whatever reason, the right HATES him and refuses to work with him on anything (seemingly). I doubt highly he set out to be so divisive. He kinda got hikeed over on his first term, he inherited a road trip storm. It'd be tough for anyone to do anything with that. I'm seriously thinking of abstaining this year. I just can't vote for Romney. He's everything I hate about a politician all rolled up into one. He's basically a caricature of the modern politician. I can't say as I have any true animosity towards Obama, but there's this:

Republicans will NEVER work with him, under any circumstances. Why? Dunno, but they won't. So I don't want four more years of the current level of allergies.

But I loathe Romney so I'm screwed for the next 4-8 years anyway.

Actually, that's the biggest plus I can think of for voting for Obama. I'd only have to deal with him for four more years. Romney has potential for 8. So yeah, that's the state of American politics today. I'd vote for the guy I can get rid of quicker.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

edlada

I don't think people should be able to vote for issues that will negatively affect others with no ramifications for themselves.

I want welfare. Welfare costs me $0, but it costs someone. To get more welfare, higher taxes need to be instituted. I am going to vote for higher taxes. All benefit to me. None to the person who is actually affected by my vote.

Can we please dispense with the welfare bogeyman for once and for all? In the 2011 budget federal expenditures for welfare of all kinds except Medicaid accounted for a whopping 13% of the total. And that number includes many forms of assistance besides direct cash benefits. The three largest budget items are Medicare (senior citizens) and Medicaid & CHIP (poor people) at 21%, Defense at 20% and Social Security also at 20%.

Since the tax issue is a non-starter the only obvious way to cut the deficit is to cut spending. Since the 13% in welfare expenditures actually helps people from sinking even further in to poverty lets forget that. Nobody wants to cut Social Security so that's out. Same for Medicare and Medicaid those are difficult too. I guess that leaves Defense spending and rest of the budget which includes civil service and military retirement funds, research, transportation and other odds and ends. Each one of these are so small that they would be difficult to cut as well. So where do the budget cuts come from?

The argument about not letting non-tax payers vote on spending money is really brilliant. Aside from the fact it would disenfranchise about half of the voting population for reasons largely out of their control it would also open a rather large Pandora's box. First of all since many of these non tax payers still pay payroll taxes do they still lose their voice? What about state and local taxes and fuel taxes which are largely regressive? Finally the "skin in the game" argument, does that apply across the board? Does that mean men will never be allowed to vote on abortion laws because they can't have babies can they? Should people in Nevada not be able to vote on interstate highway issues because there aren't as many highway miles in Nevada as opposed to say California. Of course the list goes on and on. Need I mention that we don't vote directly for the budget or taxes? How do we determine who gets to vote for what office? If you don't pay income tax you can't vote for candidates for the House of Representatives? Whoa, that sounds so ironic in a George Carlin sort of way! Who was it that wanted to protect us from the tyranny of the minority?

MarkDaSpark

edlada wrote:Do you truly believe that (bolded portion]??????????
Did you look at the tax burden chart (which only shows federal income tax) that Chem victim posted above? The one that shows that workers earning between $20,000 and $150,000 per year are basically bearing the largest share of the tax burden as a percentage of income? I don't know about you but where I come from $20,000 per year is damned close to poverty level if you have any children.

It's funny that if lower income folks point out the disparity of tax burden of lower and middle income people vs high income people, the wealthy folks are quick to shout "class warfare". (And if all taxes, payroll, state and local are included the disparity is even more in favor of the weathy) Yet a statement as ridiculous as yours is shrugged off as a sad truth of today's America. Apparently the Poli"ticks" thread has become "Fox News" newest affiliate.

What f'ing tax burden of the poor? They pay almost nothing in taxes. Or have you conveniently forgotten all the previously posted links pointing out that the higher incomes pay most of the taxes in this country?

Oh, and by the way, I recently read where the current government is making it even harder for US citizens overseas to bank locally. As in most European banks are closing accounts held by Americans. So if you happen to retire overseas, don't count on banking there.

Why do you think Rome fell? There was rich and poor, and the middle class faded away. If you work hard, but everything gets taxed away, why work? Join the poor and get everything handed to you.

And by leeches, I don't mean those that are trying to get off of welfare, but those who continually stay on it.

Edit: Oh, and I discount any "report" that uses "Fat Cat" or "Leeches" in it.

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim

bhodilee wrote:Is he himself the great divider? I would say probably not. For whatever reason, the right HATES him and refuses to work with him on anything (seemingly). I doubt highly he set out to be so divisive. He kinda got hikeed over on his first term, he inherited a road trip storm. It'd be tough for anyone to do anything with that. I'm seriously thinking of abstaining this year. I just can't vote for Romney. He's everything I hate about a politician all rolled up into one. He's basically a caricature of the modern politician. I can't say as I have any true animosity towards Obama, but there's this:

Republicans will NEVER work with him, under any circumstances. Why? Dunno, but they won't. So I don't want four more years of the current level of allergies.

But I loathe Romney so I'm screwed for the next 4-8 years anyway.

Actually, that's the biggest plus I can think of for voting for Obama. I'd only have to deal with him for four more years. Romney has potential for 8. So yeah, that's the state of American politics today. I'd vote for the guy I can get rid of quicker.

Agreed, it's impossible for even Obama to be The Great Divider all by himself. It requires the cooperation of both parties and an intense dedication to allergies.

I hadn't considered the 4 years vs 8 years angle...good point.

I think Obama is better for my own personal self-interest, although I'm not sure what I think about O vs. R on the overall health of the economy. Sure, there are problems with O, but R comes with his own set of problems. Can he really do anything besides serve the interests of the very rich? They'll make him their tour guide and he'll be glad to do it, but what will that do for the overall health of the economy?

MarkDaSpark

chemvictim wrote:Agreed, it's impossible for even Obama to be The Great Divider all by himself. It requires the cooperation of both parties and an intense dedication to allergies.

I hadn't considered the 4 years vs 8 years angle...good point.

I think Obama is better for my own personal self-interest, although I'm not sure what I think about O vs. R on the overall health of the economy. Sure, there are problems with O, but R comes with his own set of problems. Can he really do anything besides serve the interests of the very rich? They'll make him their tour guide and he'll be glad to do it, but what will that do for the overall health of the economy?

Not by himself, but with Holder, etc. in powerful positions? And I'm talking race, not political parties.

And basically, the Republicans have gotten fed up with the lies the Democrats keep feeding them about "cutting spending". Cutting spending is cutting what you spend now, not what you "might" spend in the future.

So yes, anything that increases the Debt Burden on this country should be fought hard.

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim

MarkDaSpark wrote:Why do you think Rome fell? There was rich and poor, and the middle class faded away. If you work hard, but everything gets taxed away, why work? Join the poor and get everything handed to you.

So, do we agree that it's generally bad when the middle class fades away, leaving only rich and poor? I'd like to find at least one thing we can agree on.

I'm a real live middle-class dweller, sitting right in the middle of that chart I posted, and I have zero desire to give up and join the poor. On the other hand, if I was working full-time to earn $20k a year, I might. What's the answer? I'd prefer we had a system where we could pay people a decent wage - make work more attractive, as opposed to poor being even less attractive. I don't know how to accomplish that, and I guess nobody else does either, since we continue to have this huge income gap.

coynedj

kylemittskus wrote:I don't think people should be able to vote for issues that will negatively affect others with no ramifications for themselves.

Two points:

1 - People who do not pay Federal income taxes do not vote on whether those taxes are increased or decreased. They vote for representatives in Congress who then vote on those issues.

2 – If you think that this is a meaningless distinction, will we then apply the same logic to all issues that come before Congress? After all, there are plenty of people who don't pay inheritance taxes, or who benefit from spending on the National Parks, or a whole host of other examples. Should people who don’t pay inheritance tax get to (in the terms I objected to above) vote on what the inheritance tax is? Should people who live next to a National Park get to vote on whether the Park gets a budget increase? We'd run out of eligible voters very quickly.

The problems I have are also two in number:

1 - While on the face of it it sounds very sensible that people who don’t pay Federal income taxes shouldn’t get to influence the tax system, I don’t see a good way to implement it. It seems the only possibilities are to raise taxes on the poor, disenfranchise the poor, or eliminate the income tax. Would you propose any of these?

2 – Given that tax rates for the wealthy are the lowest they have been for many years, I see a lack of evidence that the poor are using their voting power to raise taxes on the rich. The possibilities mentioned above look like solutions in search of a problem.

edit: I see that while I typed this, my points were already being made by someone else.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

kylemittskus

edlada wrote:Can we please dispense with the welfare bogeyman for once and for all? In the 2011 budget federal expenditures for welfare of all kinds except Medicaid accounted for a whopping 13% of the total. And that number includes many forms of assistance besides direct cash benefits. The three largest budget items are Medicare (senior citizens) and Medicaid & CHIP (poor people) at 21%, Defense at 20% and Social Security also at 20%.

Lots and lots going on here. Ok, responding to this post firs.t:

13% is A LOT of the budget. I don't think it should be ignored because it's smaller than other things. I think it needs to be severely cut. And it needs a huge overhaul because it FAILS miserably. People aren't getting off. It's not helping them. It doesn't work. Period. And I also think that we should absolutely cut the "defense" budget. I don't understand this either/or thing. I want to cut anything that is too big. I'm also for cutting Social Security and making it a privatized venture. Allow me to invest it however I want. And Medicaid is "welfare" and is also a tremendously failing system. The health insurance argument is old, but I'll make it quickly anyway. Health insurance is CHEAP! You may have a large deductible, but insurance isn't for every day things. It's insurance, i.e.: just in case something large happens. People run around, on Medi/Medi (I'm in CA), complaining about the cost of insurance to their friends on their iPhones! Insurance is cheaper than their phone bill!

@Sparky: The republicans aren't sick of the lying because they do the same exact thing. Both (both!) sides are absolutely ridiculous with this game of chicken they've been playing for way to f-ing long. Personally, I say F em all and start over. Pointing the finger at either side is absurd because you don't have enough fingers to point to the culpable. And I have no idea where this racial divide stuff is coming from or what it is. This is the second time I've heard it brought up here and have seen not one piece of evidence of it.

@ Coy: interesting questions. I guess my answer would be what I've always said about taxes. Either privatize everything or make it a flat tax so everyone has a stake in the ground. But yes, I would get rid of income tax. For starters.

It's interesting how closely aligned I am with RPM on fiscal issues. Like he has said many times, "welfare" issues were handled by churches, non-profits, and the like. And it worked. At least, it worked better than the s*** mess we have now. I'm sick of paying 29% in taxes to watch other people carry their designer bags, drive their new cars, get Pell grants for college, not pay their federal student loans back (why are these not privatized?!), and collect a refund check at the end of the year. Even if this example isn't the norm, it happens and that's enough for me. I have seen zero good and a s*** load of bad from the mess of a tax system we currently have. The roads are horrible, our educational system is getting worse by the day, big fish in the gov't are getting paid for jobs that aren't getting done -- F all of it. It doesn't work.*

*This last part was just a general angry rant at the current state of things.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

edlada

MarkDaSpark wrote:What f'ing tax burden of the poor? They pay almost nothing in taxes. Or have you conveniently forgotten all the previously posted links pointing out that the higher incomes pay most of the taxes in this country?

Oh, and by the way, I recently read where the current government is making it even harder for US citizens overseas to bank locally. As in most European banks are closing accounts held by Americans. So if you happen to retire overseas, don't count on banking there.

Why do you think Rome fell? There was rich and poor, and the middle class faded away. If you work hard, but everything gets taxed away, why work? Join the poor and get everything handed to you.

And by leeches, I don't mean those that are trying to get off of welfare, but those who continually stay on it.

Edit: Oh, and I discount any "report" that uses "Fat Cat" or "Leeches" in it.

At the risk of sounding simplistic, isn't it rather obvious that the people who make the most money will pay the highest percentage of the federal income taxes? The meaningful number is how much percentage of ones income one pays in taxes. When somebody making $30,000 a year pays 25% of their income in total taxes, including federal, payroll, state and local taxes as opposed to a person making $300,000 a year who pays 15% of their income in total taxes, I think we have a problem. NOTE: The numbers I used are illustrative only, not taken from any source. The lower income person is left with a far smaller amount of disposable income than the higher income person. That is why I think your statement that the poor people are killing the middle class is completely ridiculous.

As far as Rome falling the reasons were far more complex than the middle class getting taxed out of existence. As to your point about getting taxed out of all of your hard earned dollars, I believe it is quite obvious that although the wealthiest people pay the majority of the taxes (one of your main points), they are paying a relatively small percentage of their total income in taxes and aren't in any danger of disappearing anytime soon. Just ask Mitt Romney about that one. With the exception of the federal income tax, all other taxes are regressive. If you think the poor have everything handed to them why don't you quit working and join their ranks? I am sure you can still buy lots of wine with your guvmint handout check.

chemvictim

About the welfare issues, do you think Romney is going to change that? If part of the problem is poor people with children they can't pay for and single mothers, one might think that the anti-contraception and anti-abortion stuff will just make it worse. I went to Romney's website to learn about his stance on welfare reform, and I didn't see a damn thing about alleged leechers, but he wants to cut family planning.

Oh, and he wants to cut my pay (I call this "my job sucks so yours should too," and it's very effective). And amend the constitution to put those pesky gays in their place. And overturn Roe v Wade. He wants to cut marginal tax rates by 20% - Where's the Hotel?? Reform Medicare by leaving it exactly as is for old people now, but screwing everyone else (although we still have to pay)! As it turns out, I might actually have a lil bit more income than can be somehow shifted to the rich and the old. Yay Romney! Can't wait!

kylemittskus

edlada wrote:At the risk of sounding simplistic, isn't it rather obvious that the people who make the most money will pay the highest percentage of the federal income taxes? The meaningful number is how much percentage of ones income one pays in taxes. When somebody making $30,000 a year pays 25% of their income in total taxes, including federal, payroll, state and local taxes as opposed to a person making $300,000 a year who pays 15% of their income in total taxes, I think we have a problem. NOTE: The numbers I used are illustrative only, not taken from any source. The lower income person is left with a far smaller amount of disposable income than the higher income person. That is why I think your statement that the poor people are killing the middle class is completely ridiculous.

As far as Rome falling the reasons were far more complex than the middle class getting taxed out of existence. As to your point about getting taxed out of all of your hard earned dollars, I believe it is quite obvious that although the wealthiest people pay the majority of the taxes (one of your main points), they are paying a relatively small percentage of their total income in taxes and aren't in any danger of disappearing anytime soon. Just ask Mitt Romney about that one. With the exception of the federal income tax, all other taxes are regressive. If you think the poor have everything handed to them why don't you quit working and join their ranks? I am sure you can still buy lots of wine with your guvmint handout check.

-Your premise: the rich are paying a smaller % of their income (which I agree, they are).
-Your premise: the middle class is paying a larger percentage (which I agree, they (we) are)
-Your fact: a large portion of the taxes are going to pay for welfare or medicare (34% of taxes by your numbers) which benefit the poor
-Then isn't Sparky's conclusion exactly what's happening. It may not be the poor's fault, but the middle class are paying a larger portion of their income than say +$250k and -$20k people, then the middle class is being killed. And since the tax dollars being collected benefit the poor > they benefit the rich...

I'm for blaming the policies vs. blaming the poor, but I think the point is the same.

And by the way, Sparky could buy lots of wine with his gov't checks. My students, who fall into the group we're discussing, have plenty of money to buy designer clothes, iPads and iPhones, new cars, etc. with theirs.

Edit: and as far as the regressive tax argument, I have two words that I've said 5 times already today: FLAT TAX.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus

chemvictim wrote:About the welfare issues, do you think Romney is going to change that? If part of the problem is poor people with children they can't pay for and single mothers, one might think that the anti-contraception and anti-abortion stuff will just make it worse. I went to Romney's website to learn about his stance on welfare reform, and I didn't see a damn thing about alleged leechers, but he wants to cut family planning.

Oh, and he wants to cut my pay (I call this "my job sucks so yours should too," and it's very effective). And amend the constitution to put those pesky gays in their place. And overturn Roe v Wade. He wants to cut marginal tax rates by 20% - Where's the Hotel?? Reform Medicare by leaving it exactly as is for old people now, but screwing everyone else (although we still have to pay)! As it turns out, I might actually have a lil bit more income than can be somehow shifted to the rich and the old. Yay Romney! Can't wait!

Nope. But Obama isn't changing anything either. Let me be perfectly clear. I absolutely hate every policy of Romney's. The gay marriage stuff, though, isn't going to change no matter how much he wants it to because it's a Supreme Court issue and Obama couldn't do any good with it, even if he really wanted to. Overturn Roe v. Wade is stupid and just for the votes. He never will be able to. Again, Supreme Court. And I'm fine with the gov't getting their damn filthy hands out of issues that should be handled outside of the gov't like family planning (I'm very for Planned Parenthood). He can't get rid of contraception. He can't get rid of abortion. He can't make gay marriage any worse than it is. He's full of s***. And the people who vote for him for any of the aforementioned reasons are total mosquitos. Those things don't worry me at all.

The 4 years vs. 8 years is an interesting argument, though. I may want Obama because he has maximum 4 more years where Romney, whom we all generally agree isn't exactly ideal, could have 8.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim

kylemittskus wrote:Nope. But Obama isn't changing anything either. Let me be perfectly clear. I absolutely hate every policy of Romney's. The gay marriage stuff, though, isn't going to change no matter how much he wants it to because it's a Supreme Court issue and Obama couldn't do any good with it, even if he really wanted to. Overturn Roe v. Wade is stupid and just for the votes. He never will be able to. Again, Supreme Court. And I'm fine with the gov't getting their damn filthy hands out of issues that should be handled outside of the gov't like family planning (I'm very for Planned Parenthood). He can't get rid of contraception. He can't get rid of abortion. He can't make gay marriage any worse than it is. He's full of s***. And the people who vote for him for any of the aforementioned reasons are total mosquitos. Those things don't worry me at all.

The 4 years vs. 8 years is an interesting argument, though. I may want Obama because he has maximum 4 more years where Romney, whom we all generally agree isn't exactly ideal, could have 8.

Well, maybe the social stuff is just there to grab votes and polarize the masses (and it works), but damned if it doesn't waste lots of time and it demonstrates outright hostility to selected populations. We don't need that crap.

He might have more success in lowering the marginal tax rate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't that place an even greater burden on the already-squished-into-oblivion middle class? He might have more success with his Medicare "reform," which appears to mean that today's oldsters get all the benefits while we continue to pay for it, but we get nothing.

For my own personal interest, I can easily imagine that my life would change significantly for the worse if Romney is elected. One reason is that the USPTO director is a presidential appointee and I really like the guy we have now, he actually gets stuff done. Another reason is that Romney is apparently ready to crap all over the federal workforce in order to grab votes (same as Obama tries to crap all over the $250k+ crowd). Obama reelection might not save me from that particular shitstorm, though, since they were ready to do some cuts last year. I don't know what happened with that.

abrahamz

The point that the people paying no federal tax are still paying payroll, state, and sales taxes isn't necessarily true. When you consider Earned Income Tax Credit, and Child Tax Credit, are allowed to be applied above what a person has paid in, there are many in that 47% - 50% of citizens that aren’t paying federal taxes that actually have a negative tax percentage. They get back money they didn’t pay in to reimburse them for exactly those taxes. Often that amount is far in excess of what they could have possibly paid in any of those other taxes. (Income of $40K gets back $8K in excess of what was withheld and therefore has a negative 20% tax rate). I have searched for statistics on this because I also think that it’s unfair to say half the country pays no taxes because they don’t pay the Feds. But there is a large and growing number out there that really pays no taxes whatsoever that either isn’t being tracked or the data is being suppressed.

bhodilee

I think I'm going to get one of these,
and put it on my desk. I asked my boss if our healthcare covered mental health the other day and he went on a tirade about Obamacare. I told him, well remind me to write him a thank you letter then.

I despise that I work in a GOVERNMENT institution (regional, but still government) and my boss, who is on the Republican blah blah whatever committee in this state is CONSTANTLY parading Republican candidates through here (even making us sit through speeches in the boardroom). Never seen a democrat in here though, nary a one.

Oh, and I totally hugged Deb Fisher. She's a nice lady, but I'm still voting for New York Bob.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

bhodilee

kylemittskus wrote:The 4 years vs. 8 years is an interesting argument, though. I may want Obama because he has maximum 4 more years where Romney, whom we all generally agree isn't exactly ideal, could have 8.

I love that a flippant remark is actually causing people to think. I lament that we're in a state where a flippant and ludicrous statement is actually wholly sound and logical.

Obama's new campaign slogan.

ONLY FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

bhodilee

chemvictim wrote:He might have more success with his Medicare "reform," which appears to mean that today's oldsters get all the benefits while we continue to pay for it, but we get nothing.

you know you just described Social Security right? These things were not meant to bear the boomer generation. Too damn many people getting old at once with too high a life expectancy. I guess I don't know how the numbers of later generations compare to the boomers, they're just the first to hit the system.

I was at a bar not to long ago and some guy was railing against spending for this and that and the other and I told him, well, you could just die early and not be a burden on the taxpayer in the next 8 years. That went over about as well as you would expect. My table did buy me a round though, so it worked out.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

coynedj

Heck with all this talk about taxes – let’s get to the real serious stuff. Like the new Batman movie.

Seems Rush Limbaugh was talking about how the villain in the new movie is called Bane. Sounds kinda like Bain, where Mitt Romney once worked for an unknown amount of time (FWIW, I’m unconvinced that how long he was there is a real issue). Limbaugh suggested that it was a political ploy, even though the villain comes from a 1993 comic and was announced as being part of this movie more than two years ago.

I’m sure that Obama is also behind the fact that a newt is a type of amphibian, and that Cain slew Abel, but these facts are getting little attention because those guys didn’t win the nomination.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

kylemittskus

coynedj wrote:Heck with all this talk about taxes – let’s get to the real serious stuff. Like the new Batman movie.

Seems Rush Limbaugh was talking about how the villain in the new movie is called Bane. Sounds kinda like Bain, where Mitt Romney once worked for an unknown amount of time (FWIW, I’m unconvinced that how long he was there is a real issue). Limbaugh suggested that it was a political ploy, even though the villain comes from a 1993 comic and was announced as being part of this movie more than two years ago.

I’m sure that Obama is also behind the fact that a newt is a type of amphibian, and that Cain slew Abel, but these facts are getting little attention because those guys didn’t win the nomination.

This is seriously how I see most Republicans these days -- as absolutely insane. Obama is a Muslim, he's not a citizen, Batman is really Obama. The thing is, people really believe this s***.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark

kylemittskus wrote:This is seriously how I see most Republicans these days -- as absolutely insane. Obama is a Muslim, he's not a citizen, Batman is really Obama. The thing is, people really believe this s***.

So then you think I'm insane because I'm a Republican? Even though I don't believe any of that s***, other than this country cannot by any way, shape, or form afford 4 more years of Obama.

The problem is that this is so not true about most of Republicans. But then, do most Dems believe that Obama is the savior? I think that generalizations like that is part of the problem. We associate the extremes of each party with everyone in that party.

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus

MarkDaSpark wrote:So then you think I'm insane because I'm a Republican? Even though I don't believe any of that s***, other than this country cannot by any way, shape, or form afford 4 more years of Obama.

The problem is that this is so not true about most of Republicans. But then, do most Dems believe that Obama is the savior? I think that generalizations like that is part of the problem. We associate the extremes of each party with everyone in that party.

I was half-joking. And I know the extremes are not the norm, but when there are high-powered, loud-voiced people who say this kind of thing, especially Congressman and Senators, then it doesn't bode well for the party in the non-crazy public's eyes.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim

MarkDaSpark wrote:So then you think I'm insane because I'm a Republican? Even though I don't believe any of that s***, other than this country cannot by any way, shape, or form afford 4 more years of Obama.

The problem is that this is so not true about most of Republicans. But then, do most Dems believe that Obama is the savior? I think that generalizations like that is part of the problem. We associate the extremes of each party with everyone in that party.

So true, but the nutty people on both sides are so damn LOUD about it. At times it feels like that's all there is. Nothing rational can get through.

coynedj

MarkDaSpark wrote:So then you think I'm insane because I'm a Republican? Even though I don't believe any of that s***, other than this country cannot by any way, shape, or form afford 4 more years of Obama.

The problem is that this is so not true about most of Republicans. But then, do most Dems believe that Obama is the savior? I think that generalizations like that is part of the problem. We associate the extremes of each party with everyone in that party.

According to Gallup polling done in the past month, 19% of registered Republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim, and 23% believe that he was born in a foreign country.

If you can cite data from respectable polling organizations that show a similar percentage of Democrats believing loony notions without a shred of evidence behind them, I will accept that this is an issue with both parties.

Of course there are Republicans who don't fall for the nut-case stuff, and I commend you for being one such. But when 1 of each 5 Republicans have a viewpoint that far divorced from reality, one can't help but think that the problem lies more with the R's than with the D's.

(P.S. - I have voted Republican many times, including in Presidential races. I'm no true-blue Democrat. But I don't cotton to politicians who make wildly unsupported claims. Maybe the fact that my Representative in Congress for quite a few years was Michelle Bachmann has tinged my view of things).

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

tytiger58

"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" the poll asked.

A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was "very likely." Another 28.2% called it "somewhat likely."

That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.

MarkDaSpark

"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" the poll asked.

A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was "very likely." Another 28.2% called it "somewhat likely."

That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.

Thank you.

On other fronts, "according to Gallup, 18 percent of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth."

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark

Dood! I think it's more indicative of how insane the voters are in her district.

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.